I agree that I am much more into the local flood. I don't mean to be disrespectful of your view but only ask questions in areas that I have questions myself about. So yes your right, and as I said I think you have some very interesting views!!! I just am not looking to go into some out and out challenging of each others positions, I could forward several things for you to read that are detailed and very much are excellent reasons for a local flood, but alas this is not a power struggle with me, it sis an exchange of ideas and none of these questions are meant to challenge anyone. So we both have views and I am fine with that!

Ok , fully agree with your sentiments. It's not cool to be debating all the time.

It's just I was hoping for more challenges to my view because in other threads those opposed seem to fade away very quickly, from both the evolutionist and "common flood model" views. A view can only get stronger when it has survived continuous challenges. Even though the theory of a flood at the P-T boundary has been known for hundreds of years now, I feel it was discarded too quickly in the early days of geology and needs to be re-visited. So I was sorta hoping you would debate it.

New Path:IF you look at my other posts one of them certainly display my lack of understanding for geology. But I wil ask you one thing...Given the answers on another thread I have received, those that seem to be in the know....have responded to one of my questions and saying that all layers are just a myth, and none of these layers are found through out the world in a uniform manner that they can be depend upon. IN other words mammals are found under dinos, and small ocean creatures with dinos, man is on the top layers but then the layers are convoluted and not dependable So if I understand the responses I have received they would contend that no dating can be dependable with respect to the strata and layers that science currently uses for dating because it actually is not uniform.

Having said this, what evidence do you have there is a World Wide evidence of the PT boundary that is found every where? Also if it was discarded, then maybe the grounds for that was clear to those who studied it?

I asked questions about strata and different layers.... because "if" God created all the animals in the beginning ( I hold to a more younger earth view)how can we assume that diversity once set in situ in the beginning, including dinos and rhinos, mammoths etc, why would they be found in different strata being that they all lived contemporaneously with one another? IF full on creation of all diversity happened at one time, then where ever you place it they were all living together at one time, there were not subsequent creation narratives taking place. NOw one of our famous Creation scientists who I follow quite closely has studied the fossil layers he indeed says that all diversity was contemporaneous and indeed we have many (according to him, he has determined 432 different species of mammals have been dug up with dinos?) So the fact is they are never displayed with dinos in a museum or any other "evolutionary" outpost as this would run counter to the order of gradualism they seek to purport.

Now Dr. Werner is a creationists, but his study was conducted in a totally scientific manner, including his interviews with non-creation scientists.. My point is that we do have evidence in his work and some others that all the animal diversity, including the amber encased diversity lived from the beginning, the fact that they went extinct for some is relegated to possible other environmental issues, which we have all discussed before, and if indeed you hold to a wwFlood then that certainly would play into it. But it does seem that given Dr. Werners work, and "living" fossils today, there is no basis for a uniformatarian discussion with respect to the created diversity of old and what we see now. Now even over a short period of time and some catastrophes I hold too, some of these fossils are a product of pre-flood catastrophes. I sometimes question even Creationists interpretations of these strata and fossil layers....

How do you explain for instance fossilized amber with current diversity in it as well as ancient diversity? Amber is found in many different layers in different areas. I am interested in your argument....but I also am concerned that creationist what ever our ilk are no more informed than even the uniformatarian's we argue with..... I also question flood geology--any one who spent several hours reading over creation scientists publication of how much disaster took place, and the supposed sorting of fossil that took place, one could not duplicate that in a million years the cataclysm claimed by many branches of wwFlood advocates. I think the fossil record shows the earth is young and that the random placement of fossils is of recent origin. The mix of fossils speaks to the cataclysm they were exposed to. One small study on Karoo fossil and the Canadian fossils one finds the areas exposed to salt water and close. Even a Tsunami could have caused such a disaster given what happened in our history and observation.

So no I am not ready to buy into flood geology, because even though we as creationists use the bible as well, our hermeneutics should matchup with the the trail of GODs work left behind with is fact! I feel that when it is all said and done the narrative of Genesis and the observations will match-up. So I really am open to different views, but there are fundamental views the creation narrative give us, and within the pale of that their is room for discussion, and as you can see I do not follow the whole creationist buck because I don't think we have it all right. I would have you consider reading some of Dr. Werners works as his stuff is factual, clear, you can sink your teeth into it argue with anyone based on these studies and facts he has brought forth. I do think that some of the creationist stuff that is out there is an "agenda" instead trying to find the truth no matter which way the ball bounces..... While I don't believe in wwFLood currently and Dr. Werner is advocate of the wwFlood, I still believe his facts are straight and I believe applicable in other models....Also he is an advocate for "fixity" of species of which I am also.

New Path:IF you look at my other posts one of them certainly display my lack of understanding for geology. But I wil ask you one thing...Given the answers on another thread I have received, those that seem to be in the know....have responded to one of my questions and saying that all layers are just a myth, and none of these layers are found through out the world in a uniform manner that they can be depend upon. IN other words mammals are found under dinos, and small ocean creatures with dinos, man is on the top layers but then the layers are convoluted and not dependable So if I understand the responses I have received they would contend that no dating can be dependable with respect to the strata and layers that science currently uses for dating because it actually is not uniform.

I have often heard this argument, and would like to see specific examples because this would confirm my theory of isolated pockets of mammals during the carboniferous. But regardless, the Carboniferous "swampy" fossils became extinct, they do not exist now, and therefore would only be found in the lowest layers. You had a hot wet world, then a cold wet world, then a flood, then a hot dry world, and at the moment sorta inbetween. Nearly universally you do actually find that the so-called carboniferous fossils (wetlands amphibians and plants, swampy) are underneath a desert layer of sparsely populated small reptiles, which lie underneath a layer of very large reptiles. Where has this ever been found inverted? I believe it can invert, but only localized, the general trend remains logically universal.

To me this does not confirm evolution, you would need transitionary fossils for that, it confirms the flood. Only insects and small reptiles could survive the flood without needing the ark, so when the wet world was flooded over and became a hot desert world, this suited reptiles (modern deserts contain small reptiles). While other animals were breeding and dispersing from Turkey, small reptiles dominated earth for a few hundred years, some of them even adapting to fill temporary niches until the ark animals arrived. Then the larger reptiles arrived and flourished in the hot dry conditions.

Having said this, what evidence do you have there is a World Wide evidence of the PT boundary that is found every where? Also if it was discarded, then maybe the grounds for that was clear to those who studied it?

The main sign of a P-T boundary existing, is the sudden disappearance of 80-90% of previous existing fauna. A huge extinction event. When you see the last of those extinct fauna, above that you mainly observe worldwide desert conditions and small reptiles. The extinct layer below the desert reptile layer is observed world wide and is the major sign of the land-based transition.

Other hints of the P-T boundary (other than radiometric dating which is faulty) are a fungal spike. A worldwide (not universal - patchy) layer of fungal fossils, both marine and land-based, revealing masses of dead vegetation and dead fauna consumed by masses of fungal organisms. Another indication is worldwide evidence of volcanic ash. The Siberian Traps (open volcanoes) were the largest volcanic activity the world has ever known, and the ash spread throughout earth, and is actually detected between the extinct wetlands fossils, and the dry small reptile fossils that followed. It is the consistency of these trends that confirms the stages that each category of fauna flourished. It goes in a consistent order, firstly trilobites (the worldwide ocean and small island of Eden), then amphibians, then small reptiles, then large reptiles, then large mammals, then small mammals. But all the time you have these exceptions among them, something that evolutionists refuse to face despite the evidence.

The only good reason I can see for discarding it was the huge amount of post flood sedimentation found , it is argued that conditions for the last 4500 years could not produce such sedimentation. The problem with this argument is that the very region they base their argument on, is the Mississippi basin which still has the largest amount of post-flood sedimentation on earth, so they have used the incorrect place to base their argument.

I asked questions about strata and different layers.... because "if" God created all the animals in the beginning ( I hold to a more younger earth view)how can we assume that diversity once set in situ in the beginning, including dinos and rhinos, mammoths etc, why would they be found in different strata being that they all lived contemporaneously with one another? IF full on creation of all diversity happened at one time, then where ever you place it they were all living together at one time, there were not subsequent creation narratives taking place. NOw one of our famous Creation scientists who I follow quite closely has studied the fossil layers he indeed says that all diversity was contemporaneous and indeed we have many (according to him, he has determined 432 different species of mammals have been dug up with dinos?) So the fact is they are never displayed with dinos in a museum or any other "evolutionary" outpost as this would run counter to the order of gradualism they seek to purport.

Now Dr. Werner is a creationists, but his study was conducted in a totally scientific manner, including his interviews with non-creation scientists.. My point is that we do have evidence in his work and some others that all the animal diversity, including the amber encased diversity lived from the beginning, the fact that they went extinct for some is relegated to possible other environmental issues, which we have all discussed before, and if indeed you hold to a wwFlood then that certainly would play into it. But it does seem that given Dr. Werners work, and "living" fossils today, there is no basis for a uniformatarian discussion with respect to the created diversity of old and what we see now. Now even over a short period of time and some catastrophes I hold too, some of these fossils are a product of pre-flood catastrophes. I sometimes question even Creationists interpretations of these strata and fossil layers....

How do you explain for instance fossilized amber with current diversity in it as well as ancient diversity? Amber is found in many different layers in different areas. I am interested in your argument....but I also am concerned that creationist what ever our ilk are no more informed than even the uniformatarian's we argue with..... I also question flood geology--any one who spent several hours reading over creation scientists publication of how much disaster took place, and the supposed sorting of fossil that took place, one could not duplicate that in a million years the cataclysm claimed by many branches of wwFlood advocates. I think the fossil record shows the earth is young and that the random placement of fossils is of recent origin. The mix of fossils speaks to the cataclysm they were exposed to. One small study on Karoo fossil and the Canadian fossils one finds the areas exposed to salt water and close. Even a Tsunami could have caused such a disaster given what happened in our history and observation.

You see, all the evidence fits in with my theory better than Dr Werner's theory or evolution. The layers are universally observed, and so are the exceptions. By concentrating on the exceptions as in your post, you are disregarding the fact that nearly every paleontologist in the field has already observed and confirmed the standard model, that amphibians proliferated before reptiles. So your model has to include both, these exceptions found in lower layers that evolutionists deny should be there, and yet a definite sequence of flourishing types from trilobites to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. The sequence is definitely there, as are the exceptions, I've tried to explain both by a world-wide flood at the P-T boundary which does explain both.

So no I am not ready to buy into flood geology, because even though we as creationists use the bible as well, our hermeneutics should matchup with the the trail of GODs work left behind with is fact! I feel that when it is all said and done the narrative of Genesis and the observations will match-up. So I really am open to different views, but there are fundamental views the creation narrative give us, and within the pale of that their is room for discussion, and as you can see I do not follow the whole creationist buck because I don't think we have it all right. I would have you consider reading some of Dr. Werners works as his stuff is factual, clear, you can sink your teeth into it argue with anyone based on these studies and facts he has brought forth. I do think that some of the creationist stuff that is out there is an "agenda" instead trying to find the truth no matter which way the ball bounces..... While I don't believe in wwFLood currently and Dr. Werner is advocate of the wwFlood, I still believe his facts are straight and I believe applicable in other models....Also he is an advocate for "fixity" of species of which I am also.

Thanks , everyone has been referring me to Dr Werner's work, I must just read it, it sounds good!

New Path would like to further ask you more question about your views: I will need tog o slow because of my disadvantage with understanding "flood geology".

1. You seem to imply that certain forms came into being do to the environment at the time? Do to the "right" climate etc. certain animals came into prominence but the implication is that they also showed up at that time.?

2. Given you statements do you believe that GOd created all diversity out the door lock stock and barrel in the "beginning" and placed them in situ through out the biosphere?

3. It has been found that many dinosaur species and mega mammals were found or lived together simultaneously I suscribe to this because this very well sits with the biblical narrative of creation? Your thoughts?

4. I am under the impression that no animal has any power in of itself to change its body plan. design, or type. THe only way any created animals can change is due to DNA being changed, the only vehicle for that change is through the procreative genes. In other words no out side force can change genes to a new creature or creation. Fossils support fixity of species and no change within the realm of created designs. THe implication here for change only can take place due to hybridization which rarely happens in nature but does from time to time, or through man's tampering such as domestication. Animals have a max and min design within the design parameters of their species. If the ecological pressure or change in atmosphere and temps or other such things, the animals will go extinct, because they weren't designed to live in such an environment A great example is the known fossil record shows that the animal diversity say in America as we know it was unbelievably huge, Bison, Mammoths, wooly Rhino's, etc. They were found all over, but something happened and they went extinct. Some change caused extinction. The animals could not have adapted to the new conditions and so therefore went extinct? Your model seems to imply something that runs against Design and DNA unless I don't understand you as clearly as I should, I am open and interested but I throw this out for your review and consideration?

New Path would like to further ask you more question about your views: I will need tog o slow because of my disadvantage with understanding "flood geology".

1. You seem to imply that certain forms came into being do to the environment at the time? Do to the "right" climate etc. certain animals came into prominence but the implication is that they also showed up at that time.?

2. Given you statements do you believe that GOd created all diversity out the door lock stock and barrel in the "beginning" and placed them in situ through out the biosphere?

3. It has been found that many dinosaur species and mega mammals were found or lived together simultaneously I suscribe to this because this very well sits with the biblical narrative of creation? Your thoughts?

4. I am under the impression that no animal has any power in of itself to change its body plan. design, or type. THe only way any created animals can change is due to DNA being changed, the only vehicle for that change is through the procreative genes. In other words no out side force can change genes to a new creature or creation. Fossils support fixity of species and no change within the realm of created designs. THe implication here for change only can take place due to hybridization which rarely happens in nature but does from time to time, or through man's tampering such as domestication. Animals have a max and min design within the design parameters of their species. If the ecological pressure or change in atmosphere and temps or other such things, the animals will go extinct, because they weren't designed to live in such an environment A great example is the known fossil record shows that the animal diversity say in America as we know it was unbelievably huge, Bison, Mammoths, wooly Rhino's, etc. They were found all over, but something happened and they went extinct. Some change caused extinction. The animals could not have adapted to the new conditions and so therefore went extinct? Your model seems to imply something that runs against Design and DNA unless I don't understand you as clearly as I should, I am open and interested but I throw this out for your review and consideration?

1) I meant that they dominate during certain conditions, but all were created in the Garden of Eden 6500 years ago. eg at the moment mammals dominate. Increase the oxygen and air pressure and heat and dryness and large reptiles will dominate, mammals will become rare. Increase the swamplands, decrease grasslands, increase heat and oxygen and amphibians will dominate. Mammals cope best with an oxygen deprived world as now. Mammals cope best with extreme seasonal temperature variations as we have now. All the categories are here, so if conditions change, who knows, maybe komodo dragons will dominate the earth and lions will be limited to one island where they still survive.I do believe in a fixity of species since Adam, but occasionally variation can occur.

2) Yes I do.

3) Yes this supports my view. The weakness of my view is the lack of human and mammal fossils in the carboniferous, the more we find, the more strength it adds to my view. Although my view already explains that mammals were rare and not found in easy fossilizing swamps and so it is perfectly logical that we do not find them, especially since the carboniferous period is associated with the swamps.

4) You are incorrect regarding DNA, mutations occur in every generation of every species. I agree that evolution cannot occur, but devolution can occur. Animals can reduce function through disabling of protein producing genes and change accordingly. ie sometimes a gene is disabled and this causes dwarfism. Dwarfism can be helpful when there is a lack of small furtive animals. Many species have an entire dwarfish sub-species. eg humans, elephants, chameleons, cats (dwarfish large cat). This is a disabling mutation. In Africa, the Duffy gene is disabled causing protection against malaria. So devolution is possibly, reduced complexity over time to fit environmental conditions. This flys in the face of evolution, but also proves mutation can sometimes have benefits.

And allele frequencies can change too, there appears to be some limitations but the number of combinations of alleles is virtually infinite. Who knows the type of humans that will be best suited to certain extreme conditions. At the moment we have humans that mature quickly and can handle oxygen starvation conditions, we are very different to humans in the pre-flood era that had children at ages over hundred years. The number of variations is infinite, when you are saying its impossible. This happens through breeding, ie place a fish in an area where its diet is limited to flying insects. The best jumpers will survive. The best jumpers will then breed with eachother. You end up with a population of fish that can jump whereas before only a few could jump. analyze the alleles of both populations and you will most likely find that there are a few alleles that are more consistent in the new population , than the previous population. Its also possible that they look different because of the frequency of the alleles.

While I don't believe in wwFLood currently and Dr. Werner is advocate of the wwFlood, I still believe his facts are straight and I believe applicable in other models....Also he is an advocate for "fixity" of species of which I am also.

Looks like I'm a fan of Dr Werner. I generally avoid creationist sites because I find there's more scientific bias than the mainstream sources of information, but Dr Werner seems to make a lot of sense.

a) The peaks were not dulled by erosion as would be expected if they grew slowly, and from the ground surface.

b The strata wouldn't be folded unless horizontal compression produced it and led to vertical uplift as well.

c) Long mountain ranges linearly oriented, such as from north to south, imply a single horizontal compression event moving tangentally to the resultant range oreintation. Otherwise we would have to think that many disconnected events occurred over spans of time which merely coincidentally happened to line up over great distances

d) Complex mixes of range orientations in a region imply three or more basement rock plates colliding in discordant manner.

e) Relative mountain range heights signify the magnitude of the uplift and thus, the magnitude of the initiating horizontal compression.

f) When tills are seen to be comparable in shape and size over vast areas this implies a similar date of construction of them thus the same catastrophic event.

g) Plumes in the middle of large plates associated with comparable size mountain ranges implies that the plate in question was involved and that the heat generated by horizontal movement produced the melt of the plume and that compression caused the deep fracturing in the same event allowing the melt to surface.

There is no known mechanism that occurs over long spans of time, that can produce the sorting of diverse materials in the manner that water does when all materials in it are sorted out of suspension together in the same deep water event.

If a large continental plate moved as one an ground to a halt then the mountain ranges produced would be tangental to the horizontal movement, and would produce the highest mountains nearest the point of halting. The transfer of the energy would move back opposite that direction of the initial movement, and dissipate throughout deep, massive plates of rock with mountains becoming shorter the further from the point of halting. The energy when reaching the furthest extreme edge of a continental mass would be forced to rebound back and would form standing waves exhibited by mountains having definable patterns of peak to peak distances among many linearly aligned valleys.

A dropped ocean floor plate would trap melt in the middle if vast enough and if fractured would drive the melt towards the center of mass as seen with Hawaii. The plate would resonate and produce harmonic patterns on its floor if the rock of it were plasticized enough with heat.

I note that all along many continental shorelines, there are found semicircular patterns of great size and much smaller as well, seen all over the globe. For an example, look at the North American East Coast shoreline. There you will note this many sizes of identical semicircular shorelines. This implies to me that the waters on the continents when flowing off of them in the abation stage of the deluge formed these well defined and smooth geometric shapes of vast size and small. I reason that, if a shoreline initially were somewhat straight, then when the water flowed into the dropped and/or expanded ocean basins, then the erosion would begin in one place more rapidly and thus quicker, then proceeding to get wider and wider in a smoothly increasing semicircular cut into the shoreline. These cuts would often connect and leave points where they meet. This would prove that the semicircular shorlines are remnants of a huge flood of waters pouring off continents into new basins.
Imagine a crack, fissure or river, tangential to the shoreline, that draws more water into it and funnels it. As the great flow proceeds it expands more quickly there due to increased flow rate into the narrow channel. As the flow of water centering on it preceeds the erosion is focused there and advances away on both sides while cutting back at that point deeper and ahead of the distant parts further away from the centered flow, leading to a forming of the semicircular shapes we see everywhere on continental coastlines.
I think this can be proven with an appropriate experimental set up, measured, and from there, extrapolated up to the size of the semicircular shorelines seen globally.

Hill lines running on both sides of great valleys proves that a large river of water stretched across from one side to the distant other side for them to run together over great distance.

Distant mesas and plateau's with the same strata patterns and heights prove the intervening layers of strata were removed as can only be thought possible by a global size flood of water. Natural bridges proving that the water flow as quick and didn't last long enough to erase the whole feature.

New Path said:The weakness of my view is the lack of human and mammal fossils in the carboniferous, the more we find, the more strength it adds to my view.

Lou's Response:Actually if you look -up the Plaeo-group on th internet and other sites you will discover they have been C14 dating bone from dinos, mammoths, cave bears, sloths, allosaurus, you name it. And these dates are showing none over 50 thousand years for dates, and also an allsaurus was dated at 11,000 years, also all the dates fall iwthin range of one another which implies they all lived contemoraniously with one naohter including man? ThIs bodes well for creationists... This also supports the missing link in your idea. Also University of Arizonas AMS process also supports these same dates as well..... Check this out!!! http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm

O.k. with respect to DNA---certainly genes do change and there are repercussions, usually not positive, and dwarfism is not considered positive in my view. BUt lets look at this for a moment.

1. What ever animal experience such a change in the genes, they do not change the specie, and the reason is the the procreative gens have not changed the body plan into a differnt specie.

2. You inference about best jumpers is jsut that, if you can support this comment with research, I would like to see it. Again in any case this is not evoution. nor is it adaptive variation. as used by creationists?

3 . I really need for you to look at the fossil record and investigate the amber incase fossil insects and others. They are a carbon copy of these today, we have many "living fossils" my point is you imply that these body plan changes are or can be brought about over some period of time and exposure to some other outside influences. I respectfully disagree with you about this.

4. Let me also back pedal a little because it is clear that higher levels of oxygen "can" affect size? Some time ago someone captured one of our larger dragon fly species and raised a pair and offspring in an oxygen rich environment and these offspring grew to 18" or more. Now their body plans were the same, but there size was enormous, so it is possible that the atmosphere at one time did have a higher volume of oxygen which may have contributed to gigantism in some insects and even animals..... I'll give you that! But some of the inferences from creationists and science are just that--inferences, like longer legs on the anoles. I absolutely do not disregard mutations, I only suggest mutations are not a vehicle to change species, not at all. Cheers!

New Path said:The weakness of my view is the lack of human and mammal fossils in the carboniferous, the more we find, the more strength it adds to my view.

Lou's Response:Actually if you look -up the Plaeo-group on th internet and other sites you will discover they have been C14 dating bone from dinos, mammoths, cave bears, sloths, allosaurus, you name it. And these dates are showing none over 50 thousand years for dates, and also an allsaurus was dated at 11,000 years, also all the dates fall iwthin range of one another which implies they all lived contemoraniously with one naohter including man? ThIs bodes well for creationists... This also supports the missing link in your idea. Also University of Arizonas AMS process also supports these same dates as well..... Check this out!!! http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm

Yes there is a lot of evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with mammals during the times of the early great post-flood civilizations. But to find evidence of pre-flood mankind and mammals is difficult.

O.k. with respect to DNA---certainly genes do change and there are repercussions, usually not positive, and dwarfism is not considered positive in my view. BUt lets look at this for a moment.

1. What ever animal experience such a change in the genes, they do not change the specie, and the reason is the the procreative gens have not changed the body plan into a differnt specie.

2. You inference about best jumpers is jsut that, if you can support this comment with research, I would like to see it. Again in any case this is not evoution. nor is it adaptive variation. as used by creationists?

3 . I really need for you to look at the fossil record and investigate the amber incase fossil insects and others. They are a carbon copy of these today, we have many "living fossils" my point is you imply that these body plan changes are or can be brought about over some period of time and exposure to some other outside influences. I respectfully disagree with you about this.

4. Let me also back pedal a little because it is clear that higher levels of oxygen "can" affect size? Some time ago someone captured one of our larger dragon fly species and raised a pair and offspring in an oxygen rich environment and these offspring grew to 18" or more. Now their body plans were the same, but there size was enormous, so it is possible that the atmosphere at one time did have a higher volume of oxygen which may have contributed to gigantism in some insects and even animals..... I'll give you that! But some of the inferences from creationists and science are just that--inferences, like longer legs on the anoles. I absolutely do not disregard mutations, I only suggest mutations are not a vehicle to change species, not at all. Cheers!

1. I agree , its just that by some definitions of the word "species" a big outward change in the look of the creature is regarded as a new species. I still regard it as the same, because the original God-designed chromosomal pattern always remains basically the same. the more you change the chromosomal pattern through mutations, the greater the chance of extinction. So I completely agree with you about fixity. Outwardly there can be some minor changes (dwarfism) that can sometimes help a creature. ie a dwarf feline (cat) can have some survival advantages over a large feline (tiger) under certain circumstances.

2. My fish example would be adaptive variation. Emphasis on certain features in certain environments. The famous finch example, the ecoli experiment, these changes are continuously recorded.

3. Your proof of fixity in some species is not proof of fixity in all species. That is not a logical argument.

Dear New Path--the finch thing from Darwin was proven a hoax's and actually is the same specie at different times of the year with an ability for the beak to change, and this isnot an example of evolution but its originally created ability.

My point about any type of mutation, a mutation doe snot change the specie, let suppose the african elephant had a mutation carried through some line and they all became dwarf offspring. Taxonomists may ascribe some new specie to it. (just like they did with coelacanth and a big argument raised, as they seem to be the same even if from different areas. But actually besides in dwarfism it is not anew specie, or is the dragon fly that was gigantic. You cannot change a specie by mutation. When 1,000's of fly cultures over some long period of time was irradiated with radiation, some became hideous with legs coming out of their head, but they were indeed the same fly specie no matter these mutations?

So no I think my argument is very strong about fixity, and again for some reason you seem to discount all the evidence I gave you from the fossil, living fossils, amber encased insects, and it is clear that as Gould and Eldridge observed "stasis" in the fossil record. Mutation is not a specie change and for the most part does result in a negative not a positive, but in nature it may as you say help to be smaller, and so while agree that this mutation may indeed work in favor of some, I also imply that while taxonomy is not a perfect science, and if you know anything about it, you know that scientists are political about these names also.....

I ahve presented what I believe to be observable, truth, with evidence in bosy plans and backed up by several evidences, all observable, so I am not going to argue m,y point further, you don't buy my coffee brand I understand that, will not further argue my position. Listen I think you have some very excellent insights, If you have a chance I would ahve you read information from Werner but I also place my evidences from other scientists that are not Christians that do support fixity of species. I would most lastly contend, that evidence (rarely) of body change sue to mutations is not an example of adaptive variation, please go to AIG and read their definition of what that entails and implies, which is none of this.
Species change or creation can only take place through a change in the procreative genes. If you read up on this, we including me accept a lot of science interpolations, but if you get under the current, you'll find information that runs against these inferences.

I am a creationists just like you, but I think some of the inferences from some of the creation realm is just inference but not observable in any record. IF for instant all iguanas were "created" through adaptive variation within 500 years after the flood, where are the intermediates . Where as the evidence of this, how can the inference for how DNA works be found to be true, when actually DNA rins against such things. All examples on AIG of this I have not only challenged but I also have clearly pointed out hybridization was involved in their examples....Cheers!